** On Nov 14, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 01:08:59PM +0100, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > ** On Nov 13, Craig Sanders scribbled:
> > > sure it does. the monetary cost of the license is zero dollars, which is
> > > clearly included in the price you paid for the CD.
> >
> > It must be explicitly put somewhere - either in the distribution
> > itself ("The cost of acquiring the GPL license is US $0.0") or on the
> > receipt of purchase - that's what I was told by somebody fluent in
> > financial matters here.
>
> why? does microsoft issue receipts telling you how much of the purchase
> price is for the license, and how much is for the media & packaging &
> manuals?
Microsoft sells you Win9x with a license to use it only on one machine - and
that's explicitly stated in EULA. For the NT you need to purchase licenses
_explicitly_ - they are a separate "product". The NT server comes with a
license for 2 (AFAIK) connections. Same applies to Novell, for example.
In either case, Micro$loth states that the license is included in the price
of the product they sell (mostly for one person :))
> if not, then why not? why are microsoft getting preferential treatment
> from the tax office? (and other politically embarassing questions).
They're not, see above.
>
> > > also find out if commercial radio stations have to pay tax on the
> > > value of any records or CDs sent to them by record companies. they
> >
> > Oh, yes, they do. They pay huge money to ZAIKS (an organization of
> > artists ,performers and vendors) not for each and every song they
> > broadcast, but for all songs they CAN broadcast (they also have to
> > prove that the song comes from a legal source).
>
> that's not tax on the free CDs & records, that's payment of a license
> fee to the artists' representatives.
Artists get perhaps 20% of the fees... But yes, you're right - it's not the
tax :)) - that is included in the recording price. But in this case we have
explicit separation of the recording price and the license for public usage
of the recording. I suppose (althought I'm not sure) this is the same what
happens in the case we're discussing - possesion of the software doesn't (in
the tax office eyes) mean the owner is licenced to use it in public. And
since it is not stated anywhere in the Debian distro that license is granted
with the purchase of the software, they probably assume that a separate
license is to be purchased and further on assume that the latter costs as
much as in the NT case. Perverted and twisted way of thinking, but we all
know the tax offices all over the world, don't we? :)
> > What's funny, is that when you run a shop and you play radio so that
> > customers can hear it - you should pay the same fee to ZAIKS what the
> > radio paid for broadcasting the songs! Sounds insane, but that's the
> > reality.
>
> same here in australia.
Glad to hear that not only Poland has greedy govt :))
>
> what's worse is that they still demand you pay even if the only music
> you play is your own material or licensed direct from the artists (who
> happen to be your friends). they assume that because you CAN play other
> material that you in fact are.
Heh, the world isn't sane :(((
marek